Latest news with #LodhaDevelopers
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
MahaRERA orders Lodha Developers to issue full refund of booking money after homebuyer's bank loan application got rejected
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads How did this case start? September 2021: The homebuyer who resided in Russia at that time, booked a flat in Lodha Mulund Project Tower 1 for a total consideration of Rs 2,26,93,597. September 26 to October 10 of 2021: The homebuyer paid Rs 7 lakh in total as booking amount for this flat. This amount also included GST. November 8, 2021: The homebuyer applied for a home loan and during the processing of the loan, the bank demanded documents such as Russian Credit Bureau Report, residence proof of Russia, etc. November 18, 2021: The application form (booking form) was signed by the homebuyer. November 27, 2021: The homebuyers informed the builder that the bank rejected their home loan application. MahaRERA says builder can't enforce one-sided contract even if homebuyer signed it 'In the present case, the Complainants (homebuyers) reason for cancellation stems from a genuine financial hardship and inability to secure a home loan. Their intent was not malicious or to unjustly enrich themselves but to withdraw in a situation of crisis. 'In my opinion, in the present case, the Application Form was signed on 18/11/2021, after the part consideration amount was paid by the Complainants, and its terms were neither negotiated nor explained independently to the Complainants. The Respondent (Lodha Developers – builder) relied on Clause 3.5 of the Application Form and precedents such as Karun Malhotra vs. Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Jaideep Harpalani vs. Mascot Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which relate to forfeiture post-agreement or where more substantial payments had been made. In contrast, the present case concerns a pre-agreement booking based on oral assurances, where forfeiture would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of the RERA Act. Therefore, Clause 3.5 of the Application Form is one-sided, unconscionable, and unenforceable. MahaRERA final judgement: The amount forfeited by the builder is improper It is also seen from the facts of the case that the Complainants (homebuyers) paid booking amounts Rs 1 lakh and Rs 6 lakh and on November 18, 2021 application form was signed by the Complainants (homebuyers). I have gone through the same. It seems that the said application form is simply signed by the Complainants because on some pages of application form there are signatures of both the Complainants and on some pages, there is only signature of one Complainant. There is no signature of the Sales Manager on the said application form. On each page no date of application mentioned and the same is blank. There is one mandatory basic information form and the same is entirely blank. It shows that simply signatures of Complainants (homebuyers) were obtained on the said application form. There is no remark that contains that the application form was explained and read over to the Complainants (homebuyers) and thereafter signatures of the Complainant (homebuyers) obtained on the same. Moreover, it is seen that the said application form was signed on November 18, 2021 and on November 27, 2021 the Complainants (homebuyers) informed the promoter that his loan was not sanctioned and hence he asked to refund the amount within 9 days from signing of the application form. Hence, contentions of the Respondent (builder) that Respondent has incurred substantial cost in processing the booking and has lost opportunity to sell the unit to other prospective buyers due to commitment given by the Respondent is not acceptable one. Therefore, the forfeiture of the amount paid by the Complainants in my considered opinion is erroneous and against the object and purpose of the said Act which is enacted as beneficial legislation to abate the hardship of home buyers. Hence, the forfeiture of the amount is improper. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What might be some key legal takeaways for homebuyers? What happens if you book a Rs 2.26-crore apartment based on the verbal assurance of a sales agent of a well-known builder, only to discover later that they are retracting their promises? This is the experience of an Indian homebuyer who was working in Russia at the time and decided to buy a house property in Mumbai worth Rs 2.26 crore. The sales agent from Lodha Developers (builder) assured him that in case of a personal/financial crisis or if his home loan application got rejected, the booking amount of Rs 7 lakh he paid will be refunded in full without any the bank where this homebuyer applied for a home loan, turned down his application, following which the homebuyer requested the builder to cancel the booking and process a refund of the booking amount. And, this is where the problem started. The builder refused to initiate the refund and claimed that as per Clause 1.4 and 3.5 of the terms of application form (booking form) that the homebuyer had signed, no refund could be issued for such homebuyer, feeling wronged by Lodha Developers (formerly Macrotech), filed a case in Maharashtra RERA (MahaRERA) under Section 12 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016) or RERA Act, response, the builder claimed that the homebuyer's action of filing a case with MahaRERA was nothing but a desperate and malicious attempt to exit the project without facing any penalties provided in the application form (booking form) and to coerce them into complying with the homebuyers' request for a refund of the booking said that this case relies on a pre-agreement booking based on oral assurances, where forfeiture would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of the RERA Act. 'Therefore, Clause 3.5 of the Application Form is one-sided, unconscionable, and unenforceable,' said summarize, the developer had cited both Clause 1.4 and 3.5 as justifications for refusing to refund the booking amount. MahaRERA pointed out that the 'one-sided' application form (booking form) cited by the builder lacks the signature of the sales manager. Further, MahaRERA observed that there is no indication that the application form was explained and read to the homebuyers before their signatures were builder said he had incurred significant losses because of this booking cancellation. When MahaRERA looked into it, they found that the homebuyer had cancelled the booking within 9 days from signing of the application form (booking form).MahaRERA said: 'Hence, the contentions of the Respondent (builder) that Respondent has incurred substantial cost in processing the booking and has lost opportunity to sell the unit to other prospective buyers due to commitment given by the Complainant (homebuyer) is not acceptable one.'Keep reading to find out why this RERA judgement matters for homebuyers and what other legal areguements was cited by MahaRERA that led to the builder losing the a timeline of events according to the order of MahaRERA dated June 10, 2025:After the home loan application was rejected, the homebuyer informed the builder and requested for cancellation of the booking. The homebuyer said that he has been constantly reaching out to the builder's office through mails, phone calls and WhatsApp messages to get his rightful refund, but the builder did not give the refund. Soon after he filed a case with MahaRERA against Lodha Developers (formerly Macrotech).According to the order of MahaRERA dated June 10, 2025, here's what the RERA said:MahaRERA said:Judgement: 'In my opinion, the Complainant is entitled to refund the amount of Rs. 6,65,000 without interest. The Respondent / promoter is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 6,65,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty-Five Thousand Only) on or before 15.07.2025 failing which an interest at the rate 2% above SBI's Higher Marginal Cost of Lending Rate shall be payable w.e.f. 16.07.2025 till the realization of the said amount.'ET Wealth Online has asked various lawyers about what might be some key legal takeaways from this judgement. Here's what they said:'If a homebuyer wishes to safeguard their interests, the agreement for sale is the cornerstone of their rights.''The RERA mandates that any token or advance payment may only be accepted at the time of executing the agreement for sale. However, in practice, many developers present a cyclostyled, standard-form agreement to homebuyers shortly before execution, leaving little time for review or negotiation. It is therefore essential that homebuyers scrutinise the agreement carefully and verify whether its terms align with the representations made in marketing brochures, advertisements, and other promotional material.''While the agreement holds legal primacy, Courts have, in appropriate cases, considered written communications, transaction details and promotional material to determine the promoter's representations and assess the buyer's rights, especially where payments were accepted prior to execution of the agreement.'In this matter, the homebuyer has sought refund along with interest and compensation without actually establishing the Promoter's default under section 12 or section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It is interesting to note that the allotee had wilfully signed an application form wherein he had agreed that if the allottee defaults in making timely payments or similar circumstances, the Promoter would be entitled to forfeit certain amounts. Subsequently, the homebuyer wanted to withdraw from the project on the ground of his financial hardships and inability to secure a home present judgement has held that the forfeiture clause of the booking form was one-sided, unconscionable and unenforceable and directed the promoter to refund the amounts received from the allottee with interest and compensation towards legal judgment should not become a precedent for allottees to block a flat/apartment in a project and then use the machinery of RERA to seek refund along with interest, if they are unable to make timely the past decade, both legislation and judiciary are taking steps to safeguard rights of homebuyers. At the same time, it is important that the allottees should also be aware as to what they are signing up for. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority has the responsibility of balancing the rights of homebuyers in the arena of the Act as well as ensuring that the real estate projects are RERA is an ameliorative law for the class of homebuyers, principles of 'Let the buyer beware' should be emphasised. Also, the fact that written contracts override oral assurances should be borne in mind. It is important that contractual obligations mutually agreed between the parties should not be diluted.
Time of India
18-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Lodha Developers acquires 945 apartments in Mumbai's Mankhurd for Rs 567 cr
Lodha Developers has acquired over 945 apartments as permanent transit camp (PTC) units in Mumbai's eastern suburb of Mankhurd from another real estate developer in a transaction valued at Rs 567 crore. This is the largest SRA-linked asset transfers recorded so far and reinforces the growing trend of offsite PTC fulfilment in Mumbai's real estate market. The transaction involving bulk purchase of apartments includes a total built-up area of 3.39 lakh sq ft and is a compliance-driven move. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The company has paid stamp duty of Rs 34.02 crore for the registration of the bulk transaction that took place on June 3, showed documents accessed through realty data analytics platform CRE Matrix. A Permanent Transit Camp refers to ready-built housing units that developers construct or acquire to temporarily or permanently house project-affected people--usually slum dwellers or tenants--under SRA schemes or redevelopment projects. Live Events One of the company's ongoing projects involving slum rehabilitation in Vikhroli suburb mandates the developer to hand over more than 50,000 sq meter of constructed area to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for PTC purposes. 'This is a classic example of how larger developers are using asset-backed planning to meet regulatory obligations while optimizing timelines. For the developer, this is usually both a strategic and a tactical purchase,' said a senior real estate consultant. With limited land availability in Vikhroli and long gestation periods associated with in situ construction, Lodha is looking to fulfil this obligation through an offsite transfer of built-up area. ET's email query to Lodha Developers remained unanswered till the time of going to press. These residential units, once completed, will be handed over to the SRA, allowing Lodha to meet its rehabilitation commitment for the Vikhroli project. The seller reportedly holds over 83,000 sq meter free sale component in Mankhurd, making the location suitable for such a transaction under SRA norms. With this deal, the seller has monetized part of its free sale inventory, while Lodha will achieve quicker compliance for its Vikhroli project without additional construction delays. The transaction also indicates the growing relevance of eastern suburbs like Mankhurd in Mumbai's redevelopment story. Transactions like these are expected to rise as Mumbai's redevelopment momentum accelerates, driven by the twin pressures of tighter delivery timelines and increasingly stringent compliance frameworks. With limited availability of vacant land in core city areas and growing regulatory scrutiny, developers are opting for quicker, asset-backed solutions like offsite PTC fulfilment. This trend is likely to continue as large-scale urban renewal projects gain pace across the city's eastern and central suburbs.
Business Standard
17-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Macrotech Developers gains after rebranding as Lodha Developers
Macrotech Developers added 1.14% to Rs 1,483.60 after the firm said it has officially changed its name to Lodha Developers, effective 16 June 2025, following approval from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Macrotech Developers (Lodha Group) is among the largest real estate developers in India that has delivered with scale since the 1980s. The core business of Lodha Group is residential real estate development with a focus on affordable and mid-income housing. The company reported 38.49% jump in consolidated net profit to Rs 921.7 crore in Q4 FY25 as against Rs 665.5 crore posted in Q4 FY24. Revenue from operations rose 5.12% YoY to Rs 4,224.3 crore in the quarter ended 31 March 2025.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
16-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Macrotech Developers rebrands as Lodha Developers after dispute settlement
Abhishek Lodha's Macrotech Developers has changed its name to 'Lodha Developers', according to the company's stock exchange filing on Monday (16 June). 'The Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), has approved the change in name of the Company from 'Macrotech Developers Limited' to 'Lodha Developers Limited' with effect from 16 June 2025,' the Mumbai-based developer noted. The move comes after the culmination of a recent trademark dispute between the company and House of Abhinandan Lodha (HoABL), a firm led by Abhishek's younger brother, Abhinandan Lodha. In January 2025, Lodha Developers (formerly known as Macrotech Developers) filed a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court against HoABL over the use of the 'Lodha' name, seeking Rs 5,000 crore in damages. However, the court suggested that both parties resolve the matter through mediation. However, on 2 April, Macrotech accused certain entities of HoABL of using 'purported' board resolutions of Macrotech for the use of the 'Lodha' trademark and filing the same with government authorities. HoABL then denied the accusations by Macrotech and filed a police complaint against unknown persons to investigate the alleged offences. HoABL filed the complaint on 3 April 2025 and wrote a letter to the police on 4 April 2025. However, on 14 April, both companies confirmed that all disputes had been amicably resolved through mediation and under the guidance of Abhishek and Abhinandan's parents. In May, Abhinandan Lodha's Lodha Ventures also rebranded itself as Abhinandan Ventures. The company gave up its registered trademark 'Lodha Ventures'. According to the consent terms signed by the Lodha brothers to resolve the trademark dispute, Abhinandan Lodha agrees and acknowledges that he does not have any right whatsoever to, and shall not, either separately or in combination with any other words, use or adopt any trademark, tradename, logo, domain name, project name, corporate name or email address, or use in any other manner, the word(s) 'Lodha' or 'Lodha Group' or any other term or word which is identical with or deceptively similar to any trademark, tradename, logo, domain name, project name, corporate name or email address used by Lodha Developers.
Mint
03-06-2025
- Automotive
- Mint
Tesla leases space in Mumbai's Lodha Logistics Park, expanding India footprint
Bengaluru: American electric carmaker Tesla Inc. has leased 24,565 sq. ft. of space at Lodha Logistics Park in Mumbai's Kurla West. The transaction adds to the Elon Musk-promoted company's steady expansion of its real estate footprint in India—through offices, showrooms, and now warehousing—as it inches towards an expected market entry. The five-year lease was signed between Tesla India Motor & Energy Pvt. Ltd and Lodha Developers, and registered on 16 May. Tesla will pay a starting monthly rent of ₹ 37.53 lakh, totalling over ₹ 24 crore over the lease term, according to documents accessed by CRE Matrix, a real estate data analytics firm. A person familiar with the development said the leased space may be used as a service centre for Tesla's electric vehicles. The person added that the company may expand within the facility in future. The deal marks Tesla's third lease in Mumbai this year. In addition to a 30-seater office in a co-working centre in Kurla, it also took up space in the high-profile Maker Maxity complex in Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC) at a record rate of ₹ 881 per sq. ft. Lodha Logistics Park is a 400,000 sq. ft in-city distribution centre catering to last-mile delivery needs of e-commerce, quick-commerce and cloud kitchen firms. Tesla and Lodha Developers did not respond to Mint's queries. Beyond Mumbai, Tesla leased 5,850 sq. ft. of office space in Pune last year and has recently taken showroom space in Delhi. 'Tesla's India entry is taking shape through a deliberate, multi-city rollout—from its office in Pune to flagship showrooms in BKC and Delhi-NCR, co-working presence in BKC, and now a strategic warehousing facility in Kurla West,' said Abhishek Kiran Gupta, CEO of CRE Matrix. 'This 24,565 sq. ft. lease at ₹ 153 per sq. ft. is more than a real estate transaction—it's a signal of intent. We're witnessing Tesla build a high-impact EV ecosystem across India, anchored by prime commercial and logistics assets.' Still, questions remain about Tesla's manufacturing plans. On Monday, Union minister for heavy industries H.D. Kumaraswamy said the company has not expressed interest in participating in the government's scheme to promote domestic EV manufacturing (SPMEPCI), Mint reported.
